brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Sourcing
* Hi, I really think we need to start sourcing our information in all of our articles. Having unverified information on the wiki, if it is incorrect isn't good for anyone who reads it as it is misleading, and it can also damage our reputation (for example, I recently found a forum on Eurobricks where someone asked about a 2010 Agents sets list. It turns out that the user found the list here, and it was added by an ip, and was probably misinformation. Stuff like this doesn't help our site at all). So, I think it's time to start referencing all of our info. However, the problem is that unlike other wikis like Star Wars who can get their sources from books, movies, video games, etc, a lot of the knowledge about LEGO sets is first-hand from our users, so it isn't as easy to do. So I was wondering what people thought about sourcing material, and if there were any suggestions as to how we go about doing this. Thanks, 00:22, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :Link to sites like Brickset, Bricklink, Lugnet etc. maybe? Kingcjc 00:26, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :The databases on the internet all use each other as sources and in the case where the information is wrong, its usually duplicated among the other databases (sources), The only true and accurate source is LEGO themselves. Most of what I have added in the 1930-1970 era is from first hand , but there is a certain amount of the information that you would conceive as wrong if you are to compare it to the online databases. Just a side note Brickset is linked into Bricklink and is only a duplication of Bricklink, when Bricklink changes part of a sets details then the next time Brickset updates those changes are reflected on that site. (Thats not to say they don't add pages themselves, but they never differ from Bricklink) Gladiatoring 00:51, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::I agree. We should source more, or at least for newer sets, on articles. -[[User:Nerfblasterpro|'Nerf']][[User talk:Nerfblasterpro|'blasterpro: ']] 01:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::I would say that sourcing should be from official LEGO sites only, and any other articles should have a small, un-interfering template that tells the reader that the info can not be confirmed. Ajraddatz Talk 04:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::: I agree with in that websites apart from LEGO are prone to errors (and even LEGO's sites can be wrong at times with minifigure names, etc) and the errors are replicated. But, at the same time, I don't think it would hurt to follow 's comment and to use the external link template a bit more in articles. And is right about about any upcoming sets, minfigures, themes, etc and I think we need to reference sites for any upcoming information (because this would be from websites most likely anyway so it would be easy to do). But, I think one of the bigger problems is the older sets which aren't up on LEGO's websites and you can't get set information easily. I can see what means too about only using LEGO as a source since other sites can be unintentionally misleading, but I don't know about having a template to just say "we can't confirm anything on this page"- it would kind of mean that first-hand information which is posted by trusted users on this site isn't really trustworthy and would have the same weighting as fake lists placed on the site by one-time contributors. 05:50, December 6, 2009 (UTC) Okay, we need a proper sourcing policy. I'll add a text like "Note that the informations you are contributing need to be verifiable and you need to provide proper sources for any claims made in your text." to MediaWiki:Newarticletext. And we need to assemble a list of accepted sources. -- 22:01, December 11, 2009 (UTC) Put your suggestions at the respective section below this line. At which stage should complete sourcing become mandatory? Only FA must be sourced completely ;Support ;Comments FA and GA must be sourced completely ;Support #I think we can start with the FA and GA, and then move on to the normal articles. 08:23, January 19, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments * I'm still not entirely certain on how this would be done since some set information is from a first-hand source (users who contribute here) 09:12, January 19, 2010 (UTC) All "complete" articles, FA and GA must be sourced completely See Forum:Complete articles for details ;Support ;Comments All future set, theme and minifigure information must be sourced completely ;Support # Since all/a large majority of future information is from websites, and future articles get a lot of attention 09:12, January 19, 2010 (UTC) # Kingcjc 15:38, January 19, 2010 (UTC) # 00:00, August 3, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments =Revival of forum= * Ok, well we made a start on this a while ago, but the forum died out. So I was wondering if we could maybe start this discussion up again, starting with making some rules on what needs to be sourced for the article to be complete, beginning with some of the more clear-cut things first, then working some of the harder stuff later. Here are two things that I've come up with, the other things I can think of are a little trickier to source. Also all sourcing rules would of course be added to the MOS. 13:26, April 12, 2010 (UTC) Any information relating to a future product (set, video game, minifigure, etc.) must be backed up by a source, and referenced appropriately Support # 13:26, April 12, 2010 (UTC) #Ajraddatz Talk 13:37, April 12, 2010 (UTC) #Gladiatoring 09:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC) # 10:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC) # 00:00, August 3, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments * An example of something close to this is the "Characters" section in LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4. This is basically the same as the vote above, but just thought it should be put in the new section to see if it gets put through/voted out 13:26, April 12, 2010 (UTC) Any quotes used in an article must be taken from a reliable source Support # Also, I'd be happy to make/copy+maybe modify a bit a quote template from another wiki a quote template, which has a section for the source, and if one isn't provided, it will add an "unsourced" cat to the page 13:26, April 12, 2010 (UTC) #Gladiatoring 09:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC) # 10:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Comments I didn't know where to put it so I put it here: How about sourcing images, if we copy them from somewhere else? I now write "from Brickset.com/Biosector01.com/from LEGOshop.com" if I upload any copied files. Can we include this? And there is another problem with sourcing: The Cite Errors with the reference tag won't how up in the previkew section, which is annoying since you can only see the erroe after saving the page and you have to guess where it is wrong. Is there any possibility to show errors in the preview section? 10:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC) * About the cite error- I see these if there's a mistake in the preview, however you have to preview the whole page, not just one section. I don't think it's possible to have a cite error come up if you're editing just one section though. I don't know for sure, but I've never seen it anywhere. 04:31, August 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Nevermind, I figured that out now too. :) 10:26, August 2, 2010 (UTC) =Re-Revival= I've created Brickipedia:Sourcing, which basically has two rules in place which were the two things we all appeared to agree on above- quotes need to be sourced, as does any "future" information. I've also been kind of thinking about maybe for minifigure articles, a link to set pages can be used, such as the description of the minifigure, but I'm not sure if that would work out too well. Does anyone have any other ideas to do with sourcing? 04:31, August 2, 2010 (UTC) :I remove the Sources section when the Template:Future set needs to be removed, due the set being released. Maybe future sets should only contain the Sources section / can contain the Sources and External Links section, where already released sets should only contain the External Links section. 10:28, August 2, 2010 (UTC) Everthing should be sources...(at least I think so). 00:02, August 3, 2010 (UTC)